海角大神

In a legendary 1964 essay, Susan Sontag struck a resounding blow against the overthinking of works of art. 鈥淚n most modern instances,鈥� she wrote in 鈥淎gainst Interpretation,鈥� 鈥渋nterpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone.鈥�

Sontag鈥檚 words can be applied everything from ballets to symphonies, but they are especially 鈥� if surprisingly 鈥� germane to picture books.

After all, what could be more satisfyingly straightforward than Crockett Johnson鈥檚 鈥淗arold and the Purple Crayon鈥� or Shel Silverstein鈥檚 鈥淭he Giving Tree鈥�? Guided largely by illustrations 鈥� and written in plain language 鈥� such books are exactly what they seem to be.

Of course, that does not stop grown-ups from interpreting 鈥� or, to be more precise, over-interpreting 鈥� picture books. In 2014, 鈥淭he Giving Tree鈥� was even the subject of a debate in The New York Times over 鈥渨hether the book is a tender story of unconditional love, or a disturbing tale of monstrous selfishness.鈥� The third option 鈥� that the book merely spun a simple story with lovely, unfussy artwork 鈥� was apparently not considered.

Consider the case of Maurice Sendak (1928-2012). The author-illustrator鈥檚 sometimes strange, always inspired picture books 鈥� including 鈥淲here the Wild Things Are鈥� and 鈥淚n the Night Kitchen鈥� 鈥� are the focus of Jonathan Cott鈥檚 There鈥檚 a Mystery There: The Primal Vision of Maurice Sendak. Although framed as a critical study, Cott makes extensive use of interviews with the Brooklyn native, including those Cott conducted himself.

As Cott tells it, children had little difficulty tuning into Sendak鈥檚 wavelength, but adults turned into worrywarts 鈥� over-interpreters par excellence 鈥� when it came to his fiendish sense of humor and macabre flights of fancy. For example, Cott reports that The Journal of Nursery Education cautioned that young readers should not be left unsupervised with 鈥淲here the Wild Things Are鈥�: 鈥淲e should not like to have it left about where a sensitive child might find it to pore over in the twilight.鈥� And Cott quotes a parent who objected to the very premise of 鈥淥utside Over There鈥� (a haunting but obviously fantastical tale of ghoulish creatures who abduct an infant): 鈥淲hy on earth would you want to plant the idea of fear and worry with your children just before bedtime?鈥�

Of course, children have been known to seek out materials meant to induce 鈥渇ear and worry,鈥� from EC Comics to the books of Roald Dahl. In Cott鈥檚 book, Sendak is quoted as recalling his correspondence with a young fan named Jim, who sent the author a card bearing his own sketch of a Wild Thing beast from the book. 鈥淚 wrote: 鈥楧ear Jim, I loved your card,鈥欌�� Sendak remembered. 鈥淭hen I got a letter back from his mother, and she said: 鈥楯im loved your card so much he ate it.鈥� That to me was one of the highest compliments I鈥檝e ever received.鈥�

Perhaps Sendak prized such praise because his own childhood remained vivid to him. In an interview with Nat Hentoff, Sendak said, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe that, in a way, the kid I was grew up into me. He still exists somewhere, in the most graphic, plastic, physical way. I have a tremendous concern for him and interest in him.鈥� As recounted by Cott, Sendak鈥檚 mother, Sadie, comes across as a fearsome figure (鈥淢aurice described his mother as being continually anxious, depressed, and withdrawn, but also gruff, abrupt, and rejecting鈥�), while his father, Philip, fostered in his son a delight in frightful stories (鈥淢aurice was profoundly moved and inspired by the haunting stories that his father would tell his children, improvising, embroidering, and often extending a tale over a period of nights鈥�).

Cott is also persuasive in drawing specific links between Sendak鈥檚 life and his work. For example, the blubbery bakers who go to work after sunset in 鈥淚n the Night Kitchen鈥� have their source in advertisements for Sunshine Bakers, which Sendak encountered as a child. 鈥淚 remember I used to save the coupons showing the three fat little Sunshine Bakers going off to this magic place, wherever it was, at night to have their fun,鈥� Sendak said to Virginia Haviland, 鈥渨hile I had to go to bed.鈥�

Equally plausible is Sendak鈥檚 contention that the plot of 鈥淥utside Over There鈥� was prompted by his memory, at three-and-a-half, of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr. 鈥淗ow defenseless could babies be even among the rich?鈥� Sendak asked Bill Moyers in an interview.

Unfortunately, Cott falters when he indulges in his own form of over-interpretation. At the outset, Cott announces that he will rely on 鈥渇our companion guides鈥� 鈥� namely, art historian Jane Doonan, analysts Richard M. Gottlieb and Margaret Klenck, and playwright Tony Kushner 鈥� to explicate the 鈥渄epths and mysteries鈥� of 鈥淥utside Over There.鈥�

Surely Gottlieb is sincere when he states that Sendak鈥檚 鈥淗igglety Pigglety Pop!鈥� 鈥� about a wayfaring dog 鈥� reminds him of Ingmar Bergman鈥檚 鈥淭he Magician,鈥� but is such a high-flown comparison really in keeping with the spirit of Sendak? Doonan is on surer ground when breaking down Sendak鈥檚 art, but her dry analysis fails to capture the beauty of his style, as in this discussion of pages in 鈥淥utside Over There鈥�: 鈥淚da鈥檚 positioned on the center of the picture plane on a large scale and in profile, with her arms raised, her fists clenched, and her form creates a powerful rising diagonal.鈥�

This wonderfully illustrated book is to be admired for honoring Sendak鈥檚 achievements, but it also inadvertently affirms Sendak鈥檚 own view, quoted here, of who best appreciates his work: 鈥淒espite the fact that I don鈥檛 write with children in mind, I long ago discovered that they make the best audience.鈥�

Freelance writer Peter Tonguette contributes to The Columbus Dispatch, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other publications.